GROUPS UNITE TO CHALLENGE THE DEFINITION OF FORESTS UNDER UNFCCC/REDD

COMMENTARY ARCHIVES, 11 Dec 2008

The Global Justice Ecology Project

Global Forest Coalition, The Wilderness Society, World Rainforest Movement, Global Justice Ecology Project, Via Campesina, the International Youth Delegation and the STOP GE Trees Campaign united today to challenge the UN/REDD definition of forests.

Currently the UN considers industrial tree plantations as forests.  This is, simply put, an egregious error.  Plantations are not forests.  Forests are diverse ecosystems and plantations are void of biodiversity.  The UN definition endangers Indigenous Peoples, forest dependent people, peasants, small farmers, biodiversity and exacerbates climate change.

The groups held a media conference this morning and several actions occurred on the theme of calling on the UNFCCC to change the definition of forests so it distinguishes between native forests and plantations.

"We have united to challenge the definition of forest under the UNFCCC to ensure that agricultural tree crops, or plantations are not defined as a forest", said Gemma Tillack, an international youth delegate and campaigner for The Wilderness Society in Australia.

"The conversion of native forests to plantations is bad for biodiversity, people and the climate. Human rights, especially women’s rights, are being violated where there are plantations, and they should not be defined as forests.  In addition, industrial tree plantations impact the climate–tropical forests and grasslands store significantly more carbon than tree plantations", said Ana Filippini from World Rainforest Movement (Uruguay) and member of the GenderCC Network – Women for Climate Justice.

"Schemes such as REDD allow companies to prevent family farmers from using the land to produce the food that is needed to feed their communities and their countries", said Luis Muchanga of Via Campesina in Mozambique.  He continued,  "Deforestation, which is a major driver of global warming, is not made by peasants and indigenous peoples, but by large companies that are given the right to convert the forest to tree plantations".

The groups are proposing that the definitions are changed so:

o Forests are defined as ‘a terrestrial ecosystem generated and maintained primarily through natural and ecological and evolutionary processes that are home to most of the world’s biodiversity’.

o Plantations are defined as a crop of trees planted and regularly harvested by humans that do not provide habitat for biodiversity.

"The definition of forests under REDD is utterly ridiculous", stated Sandy Gauntlett, a Maori indigenous rights activist from New Zealand, and representative of  Global Forest Coalition.  "It leaves wide open the ability of countries to destroy their natural forests and replace them with industrial tree plantations-which destroys wildlife habitat and displaces indigenous and forest dependent communities.  New Zealand is an example of the disaster of tree plantations-and now we are in the process of developing genetically engineered trees for plantations", he continued.

"Commercial release of genetically engineered Franken-trees in plantations poses a very serious threat to the world’s forests and peoples", added Anne Petermann, Co-Director of Global Justice Ecology Project in the U.S.  "GE insect resistant trees, for example, can contaminate water and soils and the pollen may be toxic to people that inhale it or wildlife that ingest it", she stated.

The groups in this joint press release agree that: "If it is not resolved, and REDD applies this definition of forests, the global community could miss the chance of avoiding dangerous climate change and the 1.6 billion people who depend on forests for there survival will continue to be negatively affected".

Contact:   

Gemma Tillack, The Wilderness Society        +61 427 057 643

Ana Filippini, World Rainforest Movement      +48 785 260 455

Version en Español aqui

GO TO ORIGINAL

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Comments are closed.